« Jihadis On The Move (The Swarming) | Main | It's Miss Cleo! »

October 03, 2005


I'll say this for the Shrub.

He can keep a secret... Karen darlin', I was pulling for you.

She's going to get chewed up and spit out by the confirmation committee.

Interesting background info.(via RedState) Not sure that it means anything.

More background here and here. Dan Riehl was on this several days ago.

Update: re: my initial reaction (b/c of her lack of judicial experience) "She's going to get chewed up and spit out by the confirmation committee."

Perhaps not. Bush describes Miers as 'a pit bull in size 6 shoes':

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

"Harriet is not a person that gets frustrated easily," R. Bruce LaBoon, a former law partner, told Texas Lawyer. "She doesn't lose her temper. She is very cool and calm in a storm."

...she showed her readiness to take on difficult questions.

"Lawyers by nature are involved in controversy," she said. "We expect difficult issues and are prepared to deal with them."

Bush underscored her toughness, observing when he was governor, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

Posted by Cassandra at October 3, 2005 08:20 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Heh...:

» Reid Likes Miers, Why Not You? from The Sundries Shack
Senator Herry Reid seem mighty pleased with the Harriet Miers choice. “I think that’s a plus, not a minus. Speaking recently with SCOTUS justices, three of them, they said what this Court needs is people who have not been through the court p... [Read More]

Tracked on October 3, 2005 02:27 PM

» How The White House Botched Miers from Riehl World View
A key aspect of the White House nomination of Harriet Miers and subsequent press and blog coverage has gone mostly over looked. It amazed me that there were few commenters or picked up wire reports after linking a Drudge red [Read More]

Tracked on October 23, 2005 11:27 PM


I am in a state of disbelief. I really REALLY hoped he'd spring for Janice Rogers Brown, and watch the racist Democrats beat up on a black woman, self-made daughter of a sharecropper, who is widely respected as a brilliant legal mind and a person of high principles.

My first impression is that Miers is a lightweight. Wonder what Hugh Hewitt will have to say?


Posted by: MathMom at October 3, 2005 08:28 AM

As much as I like Brown, she'd have gotten Borked. Like Luttig, I'm not sure she'd have stood a chance.

You have to live in the world as it is. There is no doubt whatsoever that Roberts was qualified, yet look at the final vote. And the Dems are going into this vowing to filibuster a whole slew of names and also vowing to vehemently oppose almost any nominee. That seriously constrained the Shrub's choices.

For that reason, I thought a moderately female conservative like Williams or Sykes would have been a brilliant choice. Someone with the wit to be publicly opaque on abortion but the guts to have some principles.

I am somewhat puzzled by this too. Not sure if he is thinking she'll be sacrificed and then he can put up someone else once they're exhausted by the first battle? Is he that indirect? I don't think so. I think she's a pragmatic compromise candidate - the best he thought he could realistically get confirmed.

And to be entirely fair, in this climate he may well be right, no matter what the critics think. Have they already forgotten the Roberts hearings?

Good God. What obscene times we live in.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 08:58 AM

I hear she is unmarried and childless.
Could this be Bush's second "gay" nominee?
Just a joke, folks. I'll be working the photoshop later.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 3, 2005 09:08 AM

We can't wait to see what fruit you select counselor...

Posted by: Carmen Miranda at October 3, 2005 09:10 AM

I am disappointed. Spin it all you want, this was a chickenshit appointment by a President afraid to fight.

Posted by: KJ at October 3, 2005 09:41 AM


She also majored in Math. A rare major for an attorney, but one I applaud for self serving reasons. Also, a very male dominated field, thus supporting her possible linkage to Roberts.

Posted by: KJ at October 3, 2005 09:48 AM

Riddle me this, counselor?

How do you fight against Senators like Biden who won't vote for your nominee no matter what you do? Who says, "talk to me like I'm your father"... how fricking insulting can you possibly get? He might as well have said, "bend over John-boy".

How do you fight against those like Feinstein who have nonsensical requirements like "he wouldn't answer questions as a son, husband and father but just as a dispassionate lawyer. She objected that Roberts gave only "very detached response[s]."

When you're dealing with people like that, you have left the realm of the rational and entered a world where there are no rules. At that point, you figure who you can get past the committee.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 09:50 AM

Not buying this one. Bush seems, once again, to have bypassed any number of extremely qualified nominees to appoint someone who is a personal friend of his. That might be acceptable if there were solid reasons to believe that his personal friend was a good choice. So far as I can tell, there are none. We're left reading tea leaves over her past political donations, etc.

The Senate isn't doing its job if it approves this nominee. I don't know if she'll be chewed up and spat out or not, but she surely ought to be.

Posted by: Grim at October 3, 2005 09:53 AM

I won't pass judgment on this choice until I get a good read on her. Clearly, however, Bush is going stealth because the Dems are threatening nukes. This is a political appointment because, well, it's now a political process.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 3, 2005 10:02 AM

You know, what the helk does being a family member have to do with the points of law he is expected to weigh in on? By doing that, did they think they would trick him into revealing his personal beliefs?

How touching.

I don't know much about this appointee, but since my satellite sub contract is up this month, I won't get to watch this one and find out what she deserves or doesn't. All I can think of is if Roberts was the toughest one ideologically, then she might surprise people.

Keep us posted, Cass.

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 10:03 AM


The principle of appointing people with obvious merit is worth the fight. Bush shied away from the fight. Last I checked, he had a majority on the committee and touchy feely Biden and Feinstein don't matter. Time to go to the matresses, but he played it like a Democrat facing a terrorist: he tucked tail and walked away and will call it victory.

Posted by: KJ at October 3, 2005 10:11 AM

"You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run...
You never count your money sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' when the deal is done."

Kenny Rogers "The Gambler"

sometime in the 80s.

Posted by: Code Pinko at October 3, 2005 10:53 AM

I'm not at all impressed with Miers. Okay, so she's tough. Whoopdie-freaking-doo. My Mom is tough - she gave birth to nine children and takes no backtalk from any of her grown sons - but I don't want her on the Supreme Court.

This nomination was going to be a fight no matter who the President nominated. We conservatives ought to have a nominee worth actually having a fight over. To be honest, I'm quite content to sit back and let the ravening Democrat dogs on the Judicial Committee tear her to pieces.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 11:00 AM

As I recall, "they" all said Thomas was unqualified too.

I disagreed at the time. I saw a man who had the right stuff and would grow into the job, and he has - magnificently, I believe. You hire the right person and they find a way to succeed.

I have no real opinion on her to date. That she has a long list of "firsts" in her record means something. She is not obviously unqualified, IMO. Like spd, I will wait and see how she handles herself.

And the fact that she is an insider should not automatically disqualify her - rather the reverse if you stop and think on the matter. What everyone fears is another Souter - a liberal in conservative clothing. Think about it - Bush has appointed someone he knows very, very well. Someone he can be sure of. He wasn't taking chances with this nomination. Perhaps, as with Thomas, what he counted on was character.

He could do worse.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 11:17 AM

Yeah, she is a scary dame all right, what with her desire and ability to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution...sounds like another Roberts clone, and we know we don't need more of that!

Or could she have decided that what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose?

Time will tell.

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 11:19 AM

Not much, Cassandra. That's my initial feel from what the President has been saying about her.

I pray that I'm wrong. I'm praying harder that there are no more Supreme Court vacancies on Bush's term.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 11:23 AM

I don't mind that she's an insider -- if she were also obviously and compellingly qualified. What bothers me is that she's an insider, and not obviously or compellingly qualified. Indeed, she appears to be entirely inexperienced in the business of being a judge.

I think people accept your terms -- probably most people would be even less pleased if Bush had nominated some random head of a state bar association whom he didn't even know. Being a friend of his is a qualification, of a sort. Indeed, it seems to be the only one she has.

Posted by: Grim at October 3, 2005 11:57 AM

What seems to be escaping some of the people in this argument is that if the hard core Dems don't want to vote for Bush's nominee, there is no power on earth that can make them do so. They will just Bork the candidate. What does "worth fighting over' mean? That you seriously think there is a chance of winning over minds that are actually capable of being convinced?

Scorched earth politics accomplishes nothing except to waste the taxpayers' money. Another Bork would do nothing to advance the agenda in this country, and in the end we'd end up with a compromise candidate - the only difference would be that we'd spend a lot of time and money first and generate a lot of hate and discontent.

Why not at least listen to her before making up your mind? That's all I'm saying. I haven't even come out in favor of her. All I'm saying is, be fair and give her a hearing.

Roberts was a wise choice. He impressed the heck out of people on both sides of the aisle and still had a very hard time getting confirmed. Yet everyone seems to think that all of a sudden good sense has deserted the White House. Have a little faith - there's always time to panic later on.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 11:57 AM

Many people were saying Bush should nominate a politician or a statesman rather than a jurist even before Miers was nominated.

In today's overly technical age, we have gone overboard on the resume thing. It's like lie detector tests: we want absolute guarantees instead of just making expert judgments like we used to. No one wants to be second-guessed on a hiring decision so we demand idiotic lists of "qualifications" that aren't always needed.

A long list of bona fides is no substitute for brains and character - you can look damned good on paper and still be an overwhelming disappointment in practice. Coming off 20+ years of being a housewife, my employers gave me a chance in a technical field when many others wouldn't because I didn't have the formulaic "3-5 years of experience" in my field. Within 2 years I had more than doubled my salary and was handling not only the job I was hired to do but had taken over and redesigned our corporate website, dramatically increased the amount of traffic driven there on search engines, taken on rewriting the documentation for our entire suite of software products (extensively expanding the amount of documentation and upgrading the user interface in my first edition while also coming out with an entire suite in my first edition) as well as provided valuable advice on the user interfaces to our products to the development staff. I also designed graphics that ended up in our products.

Absolutely nothing in my "resume" promised that I knew how to do any of this "stuff". I was eminently "unqualified" -- on paper.

It was my personal characteristics and drive that made me set my sights on what needed to be done (no one set any of these tasks for me - I took them on my own initiative) and learn the needed skills on my own time.

I'll say it again: you hire the person. She only needs to be able to think. She will have a staff to do research for her. Quite frankly a good philosopher or statesman could do this job, though some of you law dogs will argue with me.

Law is not black and white - even judges and lawyers can't agree what it says. It is applied philosophy and logic.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 12:06 PM

Cassandra, if the Dems are intent on Borking the nominee (and they've given every indication before this morning of doing so) then why in the world would the President nominate someone that conservatives like me won't fight for in any way, shape or form?

She's going to have to show something very substantial in order to get my support. Otherwise I'm going to go with my initial reaction: the President lied to me.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 12:10 PM

Law is one of the most sexist professions out there Jimmie. There are lots of women in it, but you don't see many women at the top, either in academia or in practice. I'm surprised this says nothing to you:

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

And again, I can't comment on whether the President lied to you or not.

I am simply amazed that anyone would prejudge the nominee before her confirmation hearings. Especially on this side of the aisle. One wonders why the special scrutiny?

I can understand caution, but the wholesale dismay makes no sense. The President may have assumed conservatives would, at the very least, be fair.

The initial reaction to his nominee make it appear that this reaction was overly optimistic.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 12:19 PM

A politician or a statesman? A philosopher? Well, that would be another question, wouldn't it?

This woman is in fact a lawyer. She's a 60-year old lawyer in whose long career she never managed to become a judge. That's not really a very impressive stature, given that she was personal friends with a governor, brother to another governor, and a President.

By all means give us a statesman and a philosopher. If you're just going to nominate a lawyer, though, it ought to be a lawyer at the top of the game. It's not fair to nominate someone who never reached the top of the game, and then claim you're being nonconventional. A lawyer is in fact the conventional pick -- we just normally pick a much better and more successful one.

Posted by: Grim at October 3, 2005 12:29 PM

Well, first, I know absolutely nothing about her except that she's a tenacious trail attorney.

That'd great, but I don't want a tenacious trial attorney. I want a studious person who knows the text of the Contitution like the back of their hand.

I don't care if she climbed to the highest echelons of power. That doesn't tell me what she thinks about the Constitution. That just tells me, at best that she's ambitious and at worst that she's power-hungry. President of her state Bar Association? Well, that means that at least 50 people on the US right now are as qualified as she.

The President said, straight out, that he was going to nominate people just like Scalia and Thomas. That was one of the two reasons I voted for him. Well, he got close with Roberts (and I knew Roberts was close before the confirmation hearings). It surely doesn't look like he's gotten even as close as Roberts with Miers. I'd call that a campaign lie and the President is on very thin ice with me.

Like I said, until I see something actually substantial from Miers I'm going to assume that the President has done what he did to conservatives like me on the budget, Campaign Finance Reform, even considering Alberto Gonzalez, airport profiling, illegal immigration, and his baffling yawning inaction on Syria and Iran.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 12:35 PM

I have to completely disagree with you on this one, Cass. I know that you are instinctively drawn to her type of self-made woman, given your own situation, but don't let yourself be blinded by "you go girl" knee-jerk feminism. Your same lauds could be applied to Hillary, but I certainly wouldn't want HER on the court.

Ideology matters, and I am sick and tired of republican presidents going all "wobbly" on judicial appointments simply because Democrats start barking and pounding their chests. That's how we ended up with doofii like Kennedy and Souter.

You know the blitz is on by the Dems, so have your biggest, baddest fullback bust out a draw play up the middle. Let the Dems overplay their hand and stick a Thomas or Scalia down their craw.

While its true that "moderate" Republicans in the Senate might bolt, I think its high time Bush went all Don Corleone on their asses. He should follow his own rhetoric -- you're either with us or against us, and let the chips fall where they fall. Let McCain be remembered as the guy who torpedoed another Scalia, and his leadership aspirations in the Republican Party are history.

Posted by: a former european at October 3, 2005 12:39 PM

Jimmie, he invites Miers on vacation with him, so he probably knows her a durned sight better.

At any rate, I'm not here to defend her. I know nothing about her so I have no reason to do so. I'm content to wait for the hearings. She will have to defend herself in front of a very tough crowd and then we'll see how she handles the questions put to her.

And yes, Grim, a good philosopher with a knowledge of law could do quite well. My son, for instance, or his girlfriend were both classically educated (St. John's great books program) and therefore have a fairly good grasp on exactly the readings that would reinforce the type of Constitutional interpretation I tend to favor. There are many types of philosophy, but what it most does is train the mind. You approach each case with an open mind, listen to the facts, read up, and then decide. As Roberts said, even the most experienced judge often finds himself changing his viewpoint. That says something - perhaps it's not so much experience as your ability to think your way through a problem and your character that matter in the end. Your fundamental approach to problem-solving. No one wants to hear that, but in watching the Court for the past 15 years, I'm convinced that this is the key to their decisions, not "experience".

Look at the Supreme Court as it currently stands. Can any of you argue that the current justices are "unqualified"? Yet they have made some incredibly bad decisions. How can you defend Kelo?

Use some common sense. Perhaps a little more real-world pragmatism and a little less airy-fairy academic eggheadedness is exactly what this Court needs.

We think, we decide, we JUDGE, as people in the end. Qualifications do matter. But perhaps before we rush to judgment on this one we ought to hear the evidence first.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 12:46 PM

You should never have to say "who" when a nomination is made. And as for the resume comments, we aren't hiring an entry level position. An US District court judge is different than SCOTUS. I don't think becoming a judge is required. But she isn't an accomplished appellate attorney that I have heard. She is more of an administrative attorney with litigation background. Great. I don't know a thing about her, and I don't think being Bush's friend is enough. He should have nominated among the many known names we could rally for or against.

Cassandra, there is no "Borking" to be done. The Republicans have the votes if they will exercise them. Bork was Borked b/c the Dems controlled the Senate.

Bush pulled a bait and switch here. She may turn out to be a good justice. I don't like not having any idea though.

Final comment: Cass asked:

"Why not at least listen to her before making up your mind? That's all I'm saying. I haven't even come out in favor of her. All I'm saying is, be fair and give her a hearing."

NO! I'm a livid terrier. I don't have to be fair or approach this with an open mind.

Posted by: KJ at October 3, 2005 12:47 PM

Must refrain from snark........

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 12:52 PM

afe, once again you are reading into my comments far more than I have said. Why is it that you go all commando on me every time a women's issue comes up?

I have not said I support her. I'm not drawn to her at all - I favored Karen Williams or Sykes. She didn't even appear on my short list, did she? And if you'll care to remember, Luttig (a man, last time he probably looked between his legs) was my first choice - hardly the dream choice of "knee-jerk feminists".

I am completely neutral - how on earth you construe that into either support or "knee-jerk feminism" is beyond me. Methinks thou dost overdo it.

Bush also ran on a promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And that's one reason - an important reason - I voted for him. That may not matter to you all, but it does to me. I'm not interested in scorched earth politics, or pissing inside the tent.

If she's any good, she'll rally the troops on her own.

If not, she deserves to go down in flames.

Why not let her prove herself instead of spending yourselves in an agony of disappointment before you've even seen the goods. Seems like a waste of energy to me.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 12:57 PM

St. John's, eh? My respect for you increases by the day. If I had it to do over again, I would want precisely that sort of education myself.

As I said, give me a philosopher gladly. Give me a statesman who has demonstrated a mastery of the art of keeping the common peace, and furthering the lawful order. I'd be well pleased by that sort of pick.

This woman is not a statesman, and nor is she a philosopher. She is a minor political figure. This is perhaps the most important office in the land, a Justice of the USSC, and we shouldn't squander it on an unknown or an underachiever.

The Senate really should reject this nomination soundly. All that means is that Bush gets to pick again, and next time maybe he'll be a bit wiser in his choosing. KJ is right -- the votes are there, if he nominates someone who merits support. By the same token, however, it is a useful corrective for Presidents as for any official to find their power restrained on occasion.

Posted by: Grim at October 3, 2005 01:01 PM

Cassandra, you're right. He does know her a lot better than I. Basically, he's asking for trust on this pick and he hasn't earned that trust. In fact, on just about every important issue, he's betrayed the trust that most of us have put in him.

Well, except for the uniter part. I suppose he's been just fine on that one. On that he gets your support. On that, he loses mine. That'll be a toss-up between us.

But really, wouldn't you want a nominee who, when they were announced, you thought "Yes! That's a great choice!". I know I thought that with Roberts. With Miers I thought "Oh God. He's blown it". That's not a good first-impulse to have. Maybe it's because I'm screwed up somehow, but given the responses I've been reading here and elsewhere, I'm far from the only one thinking that.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 01:14 PM

Of course, there is always the possibility that Miers is just a stalking horse for Bush's real nominee. Do not the power of Karl Rove's brain!

Posted by: spd rdr at October 3, 2005 01:20 PM

I don't think a statesman would necessarily be better-qualified.

I repeat: I want to see how she handles herself under questioning. She will be grilled. If she can think on her feet, if she is mentally up to the challenge, then that will quickly become apparent. If not, that will also quickly become known and her record will be moot. She will have disqualified herself.

Either way, the vote should be based on her answers and nothing else. Nothing a statesman could have done would better prepare him or her for this post than a training in law and her experience.

This is my final answer: let her answers speak for themselves. There is no advantage to be had in prejudging Miers. I have watched for years as people speak hastily and are subsequently proven wrong. That may, or may not, be the case here but in any event, the proof (as they say) is in the pudding.

I am a slow, careful decision-maker and I prefer to base my judgments on the merits. I see no point in rushing this one.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 01:20 PM

Absolutely nothing in my "resume" promised that I knew how to do any of this "stuff". I was eminently "unqualified" -- on paper.

Cass -

This is the first thing I've read today that makes me begin to settle a bit. As a person who has always had to open the corporate door without a doorknob, I know that you can do the work without having the desired background. So I'll watch the hearings. I must say that when Dubya said her undergrad degree was in math, it made me cut her a tiny bit of slack. This certainly makes her interesting.

I wrote the following earlier, before taking my Zoloft :), but my connection went down so it didn't post:

I haven't felt quite like this since October 15, 1986, when the Astros did a foolish suicide squeeze in the first (?) inning of the 6th playoff game against the Mets, which resulted in the runner being tagged out. In that minute, the Astros lost the electricity and energy with which the fans had surrounded them throughout the playoffs. We really believed we would get in the Series! Then the suicide squeeze, when there was no reason for such a drastic play, and the entire Dome said "ohhhhhh!" in unison, and the game was never the same after that. It took 16 innings to finish off the Astros, but the game was lost with that play.

Has Bush done that with his base?

Posted by: MathMom at October 3, 2005 01:26 PM

I hesitate to comment here, as I am not a lawyer and do not have "absolute moral authority" to judge a nominee to the Supreme Court, and have never been a President of the United States, so I have no "absolute moral authority" to speak on his choices either. But:
1) I think that GWB is more than acutely aware of the situation in the Senate, both Dems and Reps. Can we agree on that?
2) I would find it hard to believe he did not see some of the committe questioning of John Roberts (absurd!).
3) He is playing a deeper game.
4) Either Harriet Miers impresses the Jud. Committe with here testimony and wins over the Senate.....or...
5) Significant Republicans defect, and the Democrats overplay their hand in defeating Ms. Miers
6) Miers takes one in the gut for the Republican party, but GWB wins, and here's why:
a. Dis-loyal (read weenie) GOP senators (RINO's) will be revealed, and "the base" or Al Qaeda (that's 'The Base' in arabic) will have that to think about.
b. The Democrats will overplay their hand (as if they cannot help themselves, muhahahaha! how many times can they act foolish in public?), and while they may defeat Miers, this will open the door to all those wonderful "first rate" conservative justices widely discussed.

"Of course, there is always the possibility that Miers is just a stalking horse for Bush's real nominee. Do not (underestimate) the power of Karl Rove's brain!" - spd rdr

More succinctly put than my wordy analyis.

PS. Jimmie, there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, either. Life is tough, bub.

Posted by: David at October 3, 2005 02:35 PM

What about the Tooth Fairy?

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 03:21 PM

I am sick and tired of Cass calling for cooler heads and patience and deciding this on the merits. I want to hash this nominee out NOW, in haste and without time for reflection! I don't need any additional information. I didn't know her, and therefore she is no good. She is a witch.


Posted by: KJ at October 3, 2005 03:42 PM

Do not (overestimate) the power of spd rdr's typing prowess, either.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 3, 2005 04:02 PM

The opinion on the Tooth Fairy is still out. And at our house, it is the 'Tooth Person of Indeterminate Sexual Orientation'. 'Fairy' has a connotation of insulting intolerance toward homosexual men.

Don't you think?

KJ has the 'fever' again, brought on by unreal expectations of the Atlanta Braves (choke! gasp!) in the upcoming baseball festivities, soon on a TV near you. Ice on the brow, and ice in your bourbon and branch water.

And I mis-spelt 'analysis', a word I type just about every day. yikes.

Posted by: David at October 3, 2005 04:40 PM

Ah. The Tooth Persyn. Got it.

KJ is writing another play based on the Roberts hearings and will entitle it, "The Stake."

Bidding will open on ebay for the movie rights.

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 05:23 PM

hesitate to comment here, as I am not a lawyer and do not have "absolute moral authority" to judge a nominee to the Supreme Court

AND THAT, sports fans, wins comment of the day.

The coveted stuffed marmoset is on its way out to you, Sir.

Congratulations. I just spit out my beer.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 05:32 PM

Although if KJ had linked to this, I'd have been honor bound to give it to him.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 05:38 PM

So the only answer here is "Trust Bush"?

I wonder if that's allowable free speech under McCain/Feingold?

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 06:11 PM

I proclaim that I have "absolute moral authority" because, like Cindy Sheehan, I once had a close family member die. Take that, O ye of lesser moral authority status!

Cass, your argument against prejudging Miers is a good one. Nevertheless, seeing as I'm in a fine dudgeon already, I choose to ignore it. Do not challenge me on this, because you cannot overcome my "absolute moral authority", woman!

Seriously, though, given the crappy track record of prior republican judicial nominees, Warren, Souter, Kennedy, White, etc, all of whom were supposedly "conservative" but turned commie once on the court, we all should be wary.

As to O'Connor, she was a terrible justice. She was horribly wishy-washy, and couldn't take a stand on anything except refusing to overturn Roe v. Wade. As a fellow Arizonan, I have read her state appellate decisions and they were less than brilliant. She was appointed to fill a quota, and so Reagan could make political hay out of being the first to appoint a woman.

If I see one more of her "5-part balancing test" opinions, I could scream. She never wanted to take a stand, but leave herself plenty of wriggle-room to decide a case based on her mood that day. She was useless.

As to me ripping on you for "you are woman, I hear you roar", that also relates to O'Connor in this context. I recall her making a comment years back that outlawing abortion would set back the "women's movement" too many years. It bothers me that someone would make decisions on constitutional jurisprudence based on some sort of allegience to a "movement", rather than the constitutional text itself.

Therefore, when someone starts talking about "advancing the cause of women", "breaking through gender barriers", the divine sisterhood of traveling pant magnolia ya-yas, or such, I take it as code speak for an allegience to leftist feminism. After O'Connors example, I think I have cause to be worried.

Posted by: a former european at October 3, 2005 06:32 PM

I know you have all been waiting for me to weigh in, so I won't keep you any longer.

I don't know her, but I don't think that is necessarily bad. I am comforted by the fact that Bush knows her quite well, that to me is worth more than a frickin resume that includes appellate court judge.

Souter was qualified (I guess)but Bush didn't know him personally, he took the word of Sununnu. Bad.

This may not be, and regardless of their resume, do we ever really know?

Posted by: Pile On at October 3, 2005 06:56 PM

Seriously, though, given the crappy track record of prior republican judicial nominees, Warren, Souter, Kennedy, White, etc, all of whom were supposedly "conservative" but turned commie once on the court, we all should be wary.

Don't any of you see that this goes to the heart of why he picked Miers? Obviously not. He knows her personally.

You can look at someone's record all fricking day and not know their heart. You appoint the man or woman, not their "record". Their essential nature won't change over time. That is what none of you "critics" seem to get - the Shrub went with his gut on this one. And frankly, if you look at her record, it screams "fighter", not weenie.

MathMom is smart. Quantitative background, then she went into law. That's a smart person. Uses both sides of her brain. She won't be easily confounded. She's not wishy-washy like O'Connor if you want my quick take, knowing nothing else about her. And you were this far right about me afe, I see a little bit of me in her. I see perhaps a bit of a thinker, but one who is firmly grounded in reality.

And I can't think of a better choice than that for the Court. Someone who can do abstract thought with the best of them, but whose feet don't leave the ground either. Someone who can crunch numbers is a person who ain't going overseas looking for foreign precedents.

I'll grant you O'Connor, though she was no worse that many male judges on the bench. I don't attribute her general suckitude to being a woman so much as to being a weiner.

Souter is a weenie. Kennedy is a weenie, and they are both men with weiners. Weenie-possession (apparently) is no guarantee against judicial suckitude.

And I could not have cared less, except perhaps tactically, whether the Shrub appointed a female to the bench. I find the concept of gender or race-related appointments offensive. I do have to say that I thought there were enough qualified women that he could have picked a woman and it would have been politically wise to do so. I liked Luttig. I rather liked Harvie Wilkinson after reading up on the list of nominees. Karen Williams was acceptable, qualified and confirmable - that's why I gave her the nod over Owens, who would have had trouble.

I would have loved to see Janice Rogers Brown, but again, she would have been a lightning rod.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 07:02 PM

Well jeez Pile.

If I'd have know you were going to say that I'd have saved my breath :)

Sometimes you scare me.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 07:49 PM

Well, now I am confused. The DJR was asked to talk to Senator Torquemada and her Right Pain in the Tuckus Torquette as if they were family members so they could know his heart, his feelings.

I give up.

Posted by: Cricket at October 3, 2005 07:57 PM

Well shee-itt.Maybe one of us will get elected President one day and appoint someone we like.
I can't remember ever hearing so much analysis on someone about which so little is known.

BUT, she is a Texan.And likely tougher than any panty-waist Massachusetts or Delaware gelding.

Let it play out.Or not, your call.

Freaking yankees.

Greg ;)

Posted by: Greg at October 3, 2005 08:47 PM

I got that point. He knows her really, really well. Do you not see that my problem with that is that I do not trust in the least his attitude toward the Constitution and that I have pretty ample reason not to?

Otherwise, I missed something.

Posted by: Jimmie at October 3, 2005 08:58 PM

I suppose it's that second part that I'm not convinced of, but that's not really my judgement to make. Only you can decide whether you trust him.

I don't see where Bush has made a lot of Constitutional calls, so I don't see the grounds to make that judgement, frankly. Thomas didn't have a lot of experience either and he's been the single best friend the Constitution has on the Court. Again, character.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 09:02 PM

Cass, I truly hope you are correct about Miers, and that my fears are unfounded. My hesitations have nothing to do with her gender. I would have loved to see Owen or Brown on the court. I guess I would have preferred an unabashed, outright conservative rather than a "stealth" conservative. The stealthy "conservatives" to date, however, have been nothing more than liberals in conservative's clothing.

Posted by: a former european at October 3, 2005 09:04 PM

I vote we all adjourn for beer :)

Posted by: Cassandra at October 3, 2005 09:17 PM

AFE, how can you apply labels to someone you don't know 1 iota about?WTF is a "stealthy conservative"?

Kinda reminds me of all the "Katrina Stories"........


Posted by: Greg at October 3, 2005 09:20 PM

A stealthy conservative is one with exceptional lurking and skulking skills:)

Actually, its a very common breed of politician who makes all kinds of promises to the conservatives to get elected then, once elected, dumps them to rush into the arms of her sister, the Democratic Party. Sound familiar?

Posted by: a former european at October 4, 2005 04:53 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)